June 2023: Ana Cristina Fonseca Reference No: 00562458 Registrant ID: 176573
Preliminary issue
The decision of the Professional Conduct Panel on 15 August Year 12 (the 5.9 Panel) was that the hearing of this complaint against the former Member Cristina Fonseca (the Member) should proceed in the absence of the Member.
On that date the 5.9 Panel noted that Allegation 1.2 as drafted relates to events which occurred in Year 5 , prior to the introduction of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016. The Panel proposed, therefore (the first proposed amendment) that Paragraph 1.9 be amended to include reference to Paragraph 1 of the Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy 2013 which states:
1. Good quality of care requires competently delivered services that meet the client’s needs by practitioners who are appropriately supported and accountable.
The 5.9 Panel also noted that Paragraph 13 of the Ethical Framework 2018 referred to in Paragraph 1.9 includes the following additional sentence which is not included in the 2016 framework (the second proposed amendment):
When we consider satisfying professional standards requires consulting others with relevant expertise, seeking second opinions, or making referrals, we will do so in ways that meet our commitments and obligations for client confidentiality and data protection.
The 5.9 Panel proposed, therefore, that the allegations should be amended to reflect these two issues.
The Panel sitting on 6 December Year 12 (the Panel) raised both proposed amendments with the BACP’s Case Presenter, […]. […] submitted that:
• the first proposed amendment was not necessary as all the allegations sought to be proved by the BACP postdate 1 July Year 6 when the Ethical Framework 2016 came into effect, and
• the second proposed amendment was not necessary as the additional words in the Ethical Framework 2018 were implicit
The Panel took advice from the Clerk regarding amendment of the allegation. The clerk advised the Panel that, when exercising its discretion pursuant to paragraph 4.12 of the BACP’s Professional Conduct Procedure, it should do so balancing fairness to the Member and any prejudice that might be caused to her by either of the proposed amendments with the objective of resolving of the matters set out in the allegations.
The decision of the Panel was that it was not in the interests of fairness to make the first proposed amendment but that it would make the second proposed amendment so that the Ethical Framework 2018 allegation was set out accurately in full.
Allegations as amended
Allegation 1
1.1 The Member provided therapeutic services to the following four clients between the dates below:
(i) [..] - early Year 5 to 16 September Year 9;
(ii) […] - May Year 5 to July/August Year 9 ;
(iii) […] – October Year 3 to January Year 6 and May-September Year 9;
(iv) […] – Year 5 to now and ongoing.
1.2 Knowing that […] was the […] of […], […] and […], who were […] , the Member agreed to act as therapist for up to four members of the same family at the same time.
1.3 During Year 8, on one or more occasion, the Member:
(i) told […] that the Member’s treatment strategy for […] was to ‘wean [...] ’ off her over-dependence on […] onto the Member, then wean […] off over- dependence on the Member;
(ii) threatened to stop […] therapy if […] failed to cooperate with the Member’s proposed strategies for […] treatment.
1.4 In the Summer of Year 8, when […] asked to reduce her therapy sessions to one per week, the Member said:
(i) ‘but you have so much going on ’or words to that effect;
(ii) ‘well we can't talk about the […] then ’or words to that effect.
1.5 On one or more occasions between 1 July and 31 December Year 8 , during therapy sessions with […], the Member disclosed information […] had told the Member about during therapy regarding:
(i) […] ‘upsets ’with members of their family;
(ii) […] relationships with […].
1.6 In or around June/July Year 9 the Member:
(i) disclosed to […] that […] was in denial about […];
(ii) disclosed to […] the Member’s own interpretations and personal views about
[…] emotional development and feelings towards […];
(iii) told […] that ‘wine feeds cancer ’or words to that effect;
(iv) told […] that […] would come back.
1.7 In August Year 9, the Member took a month to respond to a text message from […]
and told […] she did not need an appointment.
1.8 The Member’s actions, as described above, caused harm to one or more of […], […]
and […].
1.9 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraphs of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016:
7 We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during our sessions together.
13 We must be competent to deliver the services being offered to at least
fundamental professional standards or better.
33.a We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:
a. these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and beneficial to the client.
And/or the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
7 We will make each client the primary focus of our attention and our work during
our sessions together.
13 We must be competent to deliver the services being offered to at least fundamental professional standards or better. When we consider satisfying professional standards requires consulting others with relevant expertise, seeking second opinions, or making referrals, we will do so in ways that meet our commitments and obligations for client confidentiality and data protection.
33.a We will establish and maintain appropriate professional and personal boundaries in our relationships with clients by ensuring that:
a. these boundaries are consistent with the aims of working together and
beneficial to the client.
Allegation 2
2.1 Between 1 January and 30 June Year 9 , the Member told […] that […] :
(i) ' was obsessed with [the Member] ’or words to that effect;
(ii) ‘put [the Member] on a very high pedestal ’or words to that effect;
(iii) ‘wore the same clothes as [the Member] ’or words to that effect;
(iv) ‘chose her friends in [the Member’s] likeness ’or words to that effect;
(v) ‘wanted to move in with [the Member] ’or words to that effect;
(vi) that the Member was working with […] around the Member.
2.2 The Member thereby failed to meet professional standards, including in particular by acting in a way which was inconsistent with the following paragraph of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018:
55a We will protect the confidentiality and privacy of clients by:
a. actively protecting information about clients from unauthorised access or disclosure
Allegation 1 is an allegation of professional misconduct
Documents and evidence before the Panel
In coming to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
• The Association’s Case Papers
• The Member’s Case Papers
• The BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2016
• The Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018
In coming to its decision the Panel carefully considered the following:
• The allegations made
• The oral evidence of each of the three witnesses called by the BACP
• The written evidence
• What weight to attach to the evidence
• Whether the allegations should be upheld
Background and Summary of Evidence
The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (the BACP) received three complaints about Cristina Fonseca, a BACP former individual member (the Member). The complaints were from […]. The complaints also made reference to a […], [..], but there was no complaint or evidence from […]. All […] and […] had reportedly been clients of the Member at various times between October Year 3 and now.
The BACP decided to bring these three complaints as a single complaint under paragraph
1.5 of the Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 (PCP), the Registrar having decided that it is in the public interest to do so.
Drawing from the correspondence from […], […] and […], and the copy documents, emails and messages provided by them, BACP provided the following background:
• The dates of the relevant therapeutic relationships are:
o […] - early Year 5 to 16 September Year 9 .
o […] - May Year 5 to July/August Year 9.
o […] - October Year 3 to January Year 6 and May-September Year 9.
o […] – Year 5 to now and ongoing.
• […] first met the Member in Year 1 . The Member was […] tutor for two years when […]. In Year 3, post qualification, […] asked the Member for advice about […], who was then aged […] and was having […]. The Member offered to see […] as a client. The therapy ended but restarted in summer Year 9 when […] was [..] and [..].
• Around Year 4 , the Member offered to see […] , who was then aged […] and showed signs of […]. Initially this presented as […] , but it progressed into […]. […] ended therapy with the Member but also returned in the summer of Year 9 following […].
• In Year 5,[…] was struggling with her own issues and the Member offered to
see her for therapy.
• Around Year 5,[…] , then aged […], was having […]; the Member offered to see her.
The BACP brings the following complaints:
• Breach of confidentiality.
o The Member told […] derogatory things that another client who knew […] had disclosed in therapy;
o The Member read out to […] texts between […] and the Member, told […] about
[…] unhappiness with members of the family and […];
o The Member told […] that […] was in denial about […] , and disclosed to […] her interpretations and personal view about […] emotional development and feelings towards members of the family;
o The Member told […] about conversations she had had with […], specifically what […] had disclosed about […], the work the Member was doing with […] about her […] and […] feelings around her […];
o […] felt that she could not open up in therapy, as the Member would disclose what she […] had said to her […];
o When […] complained in writing to her, the Member requested that the content remain confidential and not be discussed with […] who was still receiving therapy with the Member. The Member told her that it would be difficult for her not to tell […] if […] were to take her complaint further.
• Allowed/encouraged […] , […] and/or […] to be over-dependent on her.
o When […] asked the Member in Year 8 – 9 to reduce to one session per week the Member said, ‘but you have so much going on’, and ‘well we can't talk about the […] then’;
o The Member threatened to stop […] therapy if […] did not or could not follow through at home with the strategies proposed or implement the suggested consequences to […] not […].
• Failed to provide an adequate ending for therapy.
o Following her […] July/August Year 9, […] told the Member that she did not want any appointments for a while. The Member told her that she had been advised by her two supervisors to stop therapy with […] as she did not want to be on the receiving end of […] displaced anger.
o In August Year 9, the Member took a month to respond to a text from […] saying she felt […] did not need an appointment. […] said during her therapy she felt ‘judged and scared’.
o […] anxiety and vulnerability were exacerbated in her unplanned final session by the Member questioning how […] would cope without her. […] told the Member that she wanted to stop seeing her, and the Member started shaking and saying she was ‘shocked ’and ‘surprised ’and was angry towards […]. The Member said, ‘how dare you finish like that after all these years’.
o When the Member originally communicated her therapeutic strategy to [..], she stated that it was to ‘wean [...]’ off her over-dependence on […] on to the
Member, and then wean […] off the Member. […]. The Member succeeded in
weaning […] off […], but […] has become dependent upon the Member.
o The Member told […] that […]:
▪ was obsessed with [the Member]’
▪ ‘put [the Member] on a very high pedestal’
▪ ‘wore the same clothes as [the Member]’
▪ ’chose her […] friends in [the Member’s] likeness’
▪ ‘wanted to move in with [the Member]’
▪ that the Member was working with […] around the Member
• Inappropriately expressed her own personal views and opinions.
o told […] that […].
o told […] that ‘wine feeds cancer’.
o questioned why […] would want to work in the city with all the ‘posh, rich people’.
• Gave inappropriate advice.
o The Member advised […], after she had experienced a ‘meltdown’, to drive home a five-hour journey at night, through country lanes.
• Failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.
o When, after […], […] challenged the Member about her grievances, the Member:
▪ started to cry
▪ said she (the Member) had worked so hard with […] and if she (the Member) had not been […] therapist, she (the Member) would have liked to have been […] friend
▪ said that she (the Member) had let […] down by not being there when […] was in […], stating ‘you wanted your mummy and I wasn’t there’
▪ when […] started to cry the Member came over to […] and said, ‘to hell with boundaries ’and hugged […] tightly wrapping her (the Member’s) leg around […]
▪ commissioned […] to paint a portrait for the Member where payment was made
▪ attended […] house unannounced to give […] flowers.
The hearing
[…] presented the case on behalf of the BACP relying on the Association’s Case Papers which consisted of:
[…] complaint submission […] complaint submission […] complaint submission
Registrar’s Decision; BACP 1.5 decision Member’s Response to Registrar’s Decision Further Information from […]
IAC Decision Report
Panel paragraph 5.9 Decision Witness statement of […]
Witness statement of […]
Witness statement of […]
[…] called the witnesses in the following order:[…][…].
Each witnesses took the affirmation before giving evidence.
[…] asked each witness in turn whether they wished to adopt their witness statement as their evidence; each witness did so.
[…] asked each witness questions to provide clarification or further detail.
Decisions and Reasons for Findings
The Panel received and accepted advice from its Clerk who advised the Panel to consider the evidence in relation to each allegation separately in deciding whether any allegation was proved on the balance of probabilities.
Having fully considered all the evidence in the case, the Panel made the following findings.
The Panel carefully considered the written and oral evidence of each of the three
witnesses and bore in mind:
• the length of time since the allegations and the impact of this on the recollection of each witness
• the likelihood that the witnesses have discussed with each other their concerns about
the Member
In the opinion of the Panel, each of the witnesses sought to assist the Panel and gave considered answers to questions put to them to the best of their recollection.
Allegation 1.1
The Member provided therapeutic services to the following four clients between the dates below:
(i) […] - early Year 5 to 16 September Year 9 ;
(ii) […] - May Year 5 to July/August Year 9 ;
(iii) […] - October Year 3 to January Year 6 and May-September Year 9;
(iv) […] – Year 5 to now and ongoing.
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
In their witness statements […] set out the times when they received therapeutic services from the Member. Under affirmation each witness adopted their witness statement. The Panel accepted the evidence of each of the witnesses on this allegation.
[…] was not a witness.[…] set out in her witness statement when […] commenced receiving therapeutic services from the Member and that she is still receiving such services. In her oral evidence [...] stated that […] continues to speak with the Member by telephone. The Panel accepted this evidence.
Allegation 1.1 proved on the balance of probability in its entirety.
Allegation 1.2
Knowing that […], who were […], the Member agreed to act as therapist for up to four members of the same family at the same time
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
Having accepted the evidence of each of the three witnesses on allegation 1.1, and there being no challenge from the Member in her correspondence with the BACP, the Panel found the Member proved therapeutic services:
• to […] from early Year 5 to January Year 6 and from May Year 9 to July Year 9
• to […] from early Year 5 to July Year 9
Allegation 1.2 proved on the balance of probabilities for the times set out above.
Allegation 1.3 (i)
1.3 During Year 8, on one or more occasion, the Member:
(i) told […] that the Member’s treatment strategy for […] was to ‘wean[…] ’off her over-dependence on […] onto the Member, then wean […] off over- dependence on the Member;
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
In addition to adopting that part of her witness statement on this allegation,[…] gave oral evidence that when the Member explained this proposal to her it made sense to her and that she understood the language the Member used. However, when […] relationship with her […] became really bad, […] described this as ‘so painful’, ‘awful’, that the Member had ‘got rid’ of her […] but that […] became obsessed with the Member.
The Panel found […] evidence on this allegation to be credible. Allegation 1.3 (i) proved on the balance of probability.
Allegation 1.3 (ii)
1.3 During Year 8 , on one or more occasion, the Member:
(ii) threatened to stop […] therapy if […] failed to cooperate with the Member’s
proposed strategies for[…] treatment.
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
In addition to adopting that part of her witness statement on this allegation,[…] gave oral evidence that if she sought to challenge her about […], the Member got upset, crying and gesticulating and said ‘I can’t carry on working with your family if you don’t support my proposals.’
[…] went on to tell the Panel that […] she cried when the Member got angry, that she was dependent on the Member and that at that time […] she was in a vulnerable place.
The Panel found […] evidence in this allegation to be credible.
Allegation 1.3 (ii) proved on the balance of probability.
Allegation 1.4
In the Summer of Year 8, when […] asked to reduce her therapy sessions to one per week, the Member said:
(i) ‘but you have so much going on ’or words to that effect;
(ii) ‘well we can't talk about the […] then ’or words to that effect.
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
[…] adopted that part of her witness statement on this allegation. Although she was not asked questions to clarify this allegation, during her evidence […] described the Member from Year 8 onwards as becoming too involved, enmeshed with […] , that the Member was like a self-appointed matriarch of […] family and that the Member would say to her […] that if they were upset about a thing to phone/contact her rather than […].
In light of […] evidence as set out above, the decision of the Panel is that it is more likely than not that the Member said the words set out in allegations 1.4 (i) and (ii) or words to that effect.
Allegations 1.4 (i) and (ii) proved on the balance of probability.
Allegation 1.5
On one or more occasions between 1 July and 31 December Year 8, during therapy sessions with […] , the Member disclosed information […] had told the Member about during therapy regarding:
(i) […] ‘upsets ’with members of their […] family;
(ii) […] relationships with[…] .
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
In answer to questions from the Panel each witnesses confirmed they were not undertaking systemic or family therapy with the Member.
The Panel first considered the evidence in support of breaches of confidence in general. In her oral evidence […] said that the Member would say ‘I want to share this with you’ in a concerned way, that the Member would sometimes prefix with ‘I want to share this with you’ but not say ‘I’m going to breach confidentiality’ and that sometimes it ‘just slipped in’.
In her oral evidence […] said she knew the Member was saying things to […] and vice versa as […] knew things she […] had not told her.
Allegation 1.5 (ii)
[…] adopted the relevant part of her witness statement and gave oral evidence that the Member said that possibly […] should know that was seeing someone who […] but she […] was worried about it
[…] adopted the relevant part of her witness statement and gave oral evidence that:
• she had told the Member […] that she had not told […], that she did not want to tell […]
• […] spoke to her […] about this; […] was upset as she […] is close to […] […] was upset that […] had not told her, that […] had not opened up to her
Allegation 1.5 (ii) proved on the balance of probability.
Allegation 1.5 (i)
[…] adopted the relevant part of her witness statement. Although neither […] not […] were asked questions during the hearing, in the context of the totality of the evidence in support of Allegation 1.5, the Panel considers it is more likely than not that the Member disclosed information to […] that […] had told the Member in therapy about [..] upsets with members of their family
Allegation 1.5 (i) proved on the balance of probability.
Allegation 1.6 (i)
In or around June/July Year 9 the Member:
(i) disclosed to […] that […] was in denial[…] ;
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
[…] adopted the relevant part of her witness statement and gave the same as oral evidence. Although […] was not asked questions about this allegation during the hearing, the Panel considers it is more likely than not that the Member disclosed to […] that […] was in denial […].
Allegation 1.6 (i) proved on the balance of probability.
Allegation 1.6 (ii)
In or around June/July Year 9 the Member:
(ii) disclosed to […] the Member’s own interpretations and personal views about
[…] emotional development and feelings towards […] family;
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
[…] adopted the relevant part of her witness statement. Although […] was not asked questions about this allegation during the hearing, the Panel considers it is more likely than not that the Member disclosed to […] her interpretations and personal views about […] emotional development and feelings towards […] family;
Allegation 1.6 (ii) proved on the balance of probability.
Allegation 1.6 (iii)
In or around June/July Year 9 the Member:
(iii) told […] that ‘wine feeds cancer ’or words to that effect;
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
[…] adopted the relevant part of her witness statement and gave additional oral evidence that at, the time the Member used these words, it was as if she (the Member) was giving […] information, that it just came out. The words used by the Member made […] feel ‘awful’, ‘guilty’, ‘responsible’.
The decision of the Panel is that is more likely than not that the Member said to […] that ‘wine feeds cancer’, or words to that effect.
Allegation 1.6 (iii) proved on the balance of probability.
Allegation 1.6 (iv)
In or around June/July Year 9 the Member:
(iv) told […] that […] .
Found proved on the balance of probabilities.
[…] adopted the relevant part of her witness statement and gave additional oral evidence about what the Member had said to her about […] when they were on a walk. […] used a number of words to describe what she says the Member said about […] coming back amongst which was […]
The decision of the Panel is that it is more likely than not that, amongst the words the Member said to […], was that it would come back.
Allegation 1.6 (iv) proved on the balance of probability.
Allegation 1.7
In August Year 9, the Member took a month to respond to a text message from […] and told […] she did not need an appointment.
Found NOT proved
[…] adopted the relevant part of her witness statement which read:
‘The ending with ACF was difficult as she did not reply to me for a month when I said I did not want any more sessions.’
The Panel has seen screenshots of electronic communication between the Member and
[…] where […] writes on 9 August
‘Hi Cristina thank you very much for your message but I feel as though I’m in a very good place at the moment and don’t need a session. Hope you are well x’
The Member’s reply is dated 10 September but does not include the actual word or words to the effect of, or words that could be understood, to mean that […] did not need an appointment.
The decision of the Panel is that the allegation as drafted requires both parts of the allegation to be found proved on the balance of probabilities. Whilst the decision of the Panel is that the Member did take a month to respond to a text from […] ,the Member did not say in that message that […] did not need an appointment and so does not find this allegation proved.
Allegation 1.7 not proved.
Allegation 1.8
The Member’s actions, as described above, caused harm to one or more of […].
Found proved on the balance of probabilities for […].
[…] each set out in their witness statements the harm caused to them by the conduct of the Member and each witness. Under affirmation, each witness adopted that part of their witness statement relevant to this allegation.
[…] states that the whole experience has been devastating to her and her family, that it has affected her health, her mental state, her sleep and her confidence. […] gave additional oral evidence of the harm caused to her by the Member as set out under allegation 1.3 (i) above and allegation 2.1 below.
[…] states that she often felt judged and scared of the Member, that the whole experience has made her think that the work she has done with the Member was not legitimate.
[…] states that the whole experience has made her feel stressed and anxious, made her doubt herself.
Allegation 1.8 proved on the balance of probability in its entirety.
Allegation 1.9 re 1.1 and 1.2
The decision of the Panel is that these two allegations are matters of fact, found proved
by the Panel, but were not considered in relation to breaches of professional conduct.
Allegation 1.9 re 1.3 (i)
The decision of the Panel is that, whether or not there is a valid contact between the parties to a therapeutic relationship, client confidentiality is central to the provision of therapeutic services to individuals and that this allegation as found is a breach of […] confidentiality and is a breach of paragraphs 7, 13 and 33a of the 2016 and 2018 Ethical Frameworks.
Allegation 1.9 re 1.3 (ii)
The decision of the Panel is that, whether or not there is a valid contact between the parties to a therapeutic relationship, client confidentiality is central to the provision of therapeutic services to individuals and that this allegation as found amounts is a breach of […] confidentiality and is a breach of paragraphs 7, 13 and 33a of the 2016 and 2018 Ethical Frameworks.
Allegation 1.9 re 1.4 (i)
The decision of the Panel is that the Member’s conduct as found is a challenge by the Member to […] role in the therapeutic relationship and amounts to breaches of paragraphs 7 and 13 of the 2016 and 2018 Ethical Frameworks.
Allegation 1.9 re 1.4 (ii)
The decision of the Panel is that, whether or not there is a valid contact between the parties to a therapeutic relationship, client confidentiality is central to the provision of therapeutic services to individuals and that this allegation as found is a breach of the confidentiality of […] and breaches paragraphs 7, 13 and 33a of the 2016 and 2018 Ethical Frameworks.
Allegation 1.9 re 1.5 (i) and (ii)
The decision of the Panel is that, whether or not there is a valid contact between the parties to a therapeutic relationship, client confidentiality is central to the provision of therapeutic services to individuals and that these allegation as found are breaches of the confidentiality of […] and breaches of paragraphs 7, 13 and 33a of the 2018 Ethical Framework.
Allegation 1.9 re 1.6 (i) and (ii)
The decision of the Panel is that, whether or not there is a valid contact between the parties to a therapeutic relationship, client confidentiality is central to the provision of therapeutic services to individuals and that these allegations as found are breaches of the confidentiality of […] and breaches of paragraphs 7, 13 and 33a of the 2018 Ethical Framework.
Allegation 1.9 re 1.6 (iii) and (iv)
The decision of the Panel is that these allegations as found are outwith the professional knowledge of and/or role of the Member and amount to breaches of paragraphs 7 and 13 of the 2018 Ethical Framework.
Allegation 1.9 re 1.7
As it had not found allegation 1.7 proved, the Panel did not need to consider allegation
1.9 in relation to 1.7.
Allegation 1.9 re 1.8
The promotion of benefits to and the avoidance of harm to clients is central to the provision of therapeutic services. This allegation as found breaches paragraphs 7, 13 and 33a of the 2016 and 2018 Ethical Framework.
Allegation 1 is an allegation of professional misconduct
The Panel reminded itself of the definition of Professional Misconduct in the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018:
professional misconduct means a failure to meet professional standards that is of sufficient seriousness that a period of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership of the Association may be warranted.
To assist it in assessing the seriousness of the conduct found and whether it amounted to professional misconduct, the Panel considered the matters set out in Protocol 14 that are taken into account when considering withdrawal or suspension of membership, most particularly:
• where the Member has shown a blatant disregard for professional standards
In the Panel’s opinion, the conduct of the Member as found proved, in its totality, demonstrate the Member’s blatant disregard for professional standards set out in the 2016 and 2018 Ethical Framework.
• where the Member has abused their position or another’s trust
In the Panel’s opinion, the Member has abused the trust that […] placed in her.
• where the harm to the Complainant is particularly severe
The decision of the Panel is that the Member has caused harm individually to […] and that her conduct had a catastrophic impact on the family.
Allegation 2.1
Between 1 January and 30 June Year 9, the Member told […]:
(i) ‘ was obsessed with [the Member] ’or words to that effect;
(ii) ‘put [the Member] on a very high pedestal ’or words to that effect;
(iii) ‘wore the same clothes as [the Member] ’or words to that effect;
(iv) ‘chose her friends in [the Member’s] likeness ’or words to that effect;
(v) ‘wanted to move in with [the Member] ’or words to that effect;
(vi) that the Member was working with […] around the Member.
Found proved on the balance of probabilities in its entirety.
[…] adopted the relevant part of her witness statement where this series of statements alleged to have been said by the Member are set out. […] gave additional oral evidence that it was almost as if the Member was showing off when she said these things and at one point the Member laughed. […] described this as awful to hear.
Found proved on the balance of probabilities in its entirety.
Allegation 2.2 re 2.1
The decision of the Panel is that the Member breached […] confidentiality by providing this information about […] and thereby breached paragraph 55a of the 2018 Ethical Framework.
Decision
The Panel was unanimous in its decision that there had been a failure to comply with the Professional Standards that amounted to Professional Misconduct as defined in the BACP Professional Conduct Procedure 2018 but only in respect of the proven allegations 1.3 to
1.6 inclusive and allegations 1.8 and 1.9. Specifically, that the Member had acted contrary to paragraphs 7, 13 and 33a of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Processions 2016 and 2018.
Sanction
The Panel reconvened on 13 February Year 13 as the Sanction Panel to decide what, if any, sanction was appropriate.
The Sanction Panel reminded itself of the allegations found proved, the breaches of the Ethical Framework for the Counselling Professions 2018 found proved, the findings of Professional Misconduct as defined in the BACP Professional Misconduct Procedure and the sanctions available to it under paragraph 5.12 of the Professional Conduct Procedure and the BACP Sanction Protocol, PR14.
The Sanction Panel first considered, in light of the findings of professional misconduct, whether the sanction of suspension of membership or withdrawal of membership were appropriate. The decision of the Sanction Panel was that a lesser sanction would be sufficient.
The Sanction Panel was informed by the Case Manager that the Member was aware of this hearing but had not submitted any representations for the Sanction Panel to consider.
The Sanction Panel reminded itself that the Member ceased to be a member of the BACP on 17 August Year 9 but encourages her to comply with the sanction it proposes to impose.
The decision of the Sanction Panel was that it considers it appropriate that the Member is required, within 6 months of receipt of this letter, to:
1. Undertake a minimum of 24 hours of continuous professional development relevant
to:
• the importance, for both practitioners and clients, of clear contracting particularly around the issue of client confidentiality
• the importance of clarity between practitioners and clients of what therapeutic services are to be provided to the client, eg personal, family, systemic
• possible complications in accepting more than one client from the same family/system
• the importance, both for practitioners and for clients, of boundaries and of maintaining the trust of clients
• the importance of appropriate and clear endings
and to provide to the BACP a log of the training undertaken together with evidence of what resources were used and evidence of the successful completion of such training.
2. On completion the above training to provide to the BACP a reflective statement on:
• the findings made by the Panel and what went wrong in this case
• what she has learned from the CPD
• what changes she has made to her practice in light of her learning and what steps she has taken to embed these changes into her practice
• the impact of her conduct and this case on each of the three complainants, on the reputation of the BACP and the reputation of the wider counselling profession
3. On completion of all of the above, to provide to the BACP three genuine and sincere letters of apology, one addressed to each Complainant, addressing the findings made and the impact of her conduct and this case on the particular Complainant.
4. Provide to the BACP evidence from her supervisor that they have discussed in supervision this case, in particular the Panel’s findings, together with her reflective statement and letters of apology.
(Where ellipses [ . . . ] are displayed, they indicate an omission of text)